• Sign in to Neowin Faster!

    Create an account on Neowin to contribute and support the site.

Recommended Posts

bguy_1986    316

More cladding! 😁

 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jim K    12,269

Looking nice...they should stick something on top of that old RSS column.  :)  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
flyingskippy    164

Is a sub scaled Raptor for F9/H completely off the table now? What happened to the AF contract to develope that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DocM    15,945

The Raptor for F9/FH upper stage language was a fig leaf for funding a successor to Russia's RD-180.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DocM    15,945

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DocM    15,945

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DocM    15,945

About SpaceX not getting EELV 2 funding,

 

Space News....

 


Lawmakers: Air Force launch procurement strategy undermines SpaceX

In a Feb. 4 letter addressed to Air Force Secretary Heather Wilson, Sen. Dianne Feinstein and Rep. Ken Calvert argue that the Air Force launch procurement plan creates an unfair playing field.
WASHINGTON  Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and Rep. Ken Calvert (R-Calif.) are calling for an independent review of the Air Forces space launch procurement strategy. They contend that the Air Force, in an effort to broaden the launch playing field, is putting SpaceX at a competitive disadvantage.

In a Feb. 4 letter addressed to Air Force Secretary Heather Wilson, Feinstein and Calvert  both with strong ties to the space industry  argue that the path the Air Force has chosen to select future launch providers creates an unfair playing field. Although SpaceX is not mentioned in the letter by name, it is clear from the lawmakers language that they believe the company is getting a raw deal because, unlike its major competitors, it did not receive Air Force funding to modify its commercial rockets so they meet national security mission requirements.
>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
flyingskippy    164

Funny how the three companies selected, none of them have flight hardware on the test stand that can throttle over 70%.

 

I didn't see that requirement anywhere to launch national security payloads.

 

I could wipe my ass with that money and get more use out of it than the AF will with those three.

Edited by flyingskippy
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bguy_1986    316

Used DocM's post to get the latest update on Mr. Steven.  I was interested how long it took to get through the Panama Canal.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DocM    15,945

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DocM    15,945

Falcon's future

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
anthdci    205
6 hours ago, DocM said:

Falcon's future

 

 

 

 

So they'll only have 1 heavy, makes sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DocM    15,945

They'll have FH B5 2 center cores soon.

 

And...

 

USAF looks to certify Falcon Heavy re-use

 

https://spaceflightnow.com/2019/03/14/air-force-sees-upcoming-falcon-heavy-launches-ask-key-to-certifying-reused-rocket-hardware/

 

SpaceX is gearing up for the first commercial launch of its powerful Falcon Heavy rocket as soon as early April with a communications satellite for Arabsat, and the U.S. Air Force hopes the two side boosters from the Arabsat mission can be safely landed and reused for the military’s first Falcon Heavy mission this summer, an exercise officials said will help certify previously-flown hardware for future national security launches.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.